[SCM] glmark2/master: RFP/ITP bug #695849 assigned

Dmitry Smirnov onlyjob at member.fsf.org
Thu Jan 3 13:19:09 UTC 2013

On Fri, 4 Jan 2013 00:02:12 Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Well, I think consistency in the workflow is important for working
> efficiently in a team. Therefore, this point is for me an absolute
> requirement for working on the package.

Yes you're right. I can only agree.

> IOW: I do not the svn-buildpackage package layout, and I absolutely hate
> it.

I'm sure you have your reasons. I'm OK to convert, sorry for troubles.

> >> b) It is not backed up by some other pkg-multimedia team member.
> > 
> > Please help me to understand -- because I'm not sure what package you're
> > talking about. Do we need at least one team member to back it up?
> > Or would you insist on minimum two members?
> Yes, I do really think that *every* package in pkg-multimedia should
> have *at least* two *active* team members in the Uploaders field.
> Everything else indicates that not enough developers in the team care
> for the package, which in the end is harmful for pkg-multimedia. We
> already a pretty bad maintainer per package ratio, and adding more
> poorly-maintained packages does not help at all.

OK, thanks for explaining. I have two concerns though.

This package is not uploaded so it does not affect maintainer per package 
ratio. Not yet.

It doesn't make any sense to move package repository to collab-maint whenever 
there is less than two active maintainers. Wouldn't we push less active 
packages away from pkg-multimedia like this?
You're talking about desirable (ideal) situation.

> >> Dimitry, unless both issues can be fixed, I think collab-maint would
> >> serve a much better umbrella than pkg-multimedia.
> > 
> > Although glmark2 is finished I'm a bit reluctant to take responsibility
> > for it at this time but I might do it later.
> > Package "glmark2" is much related to multimedia and appears to be a good
> > fit for a team. Does it make sense to move it to collab-maint for some
> > time? Even if not maintained now, it's a new package so perhaps it's not
> > too important where it is waiting for maintainer while it is not
> > uploaded yet.
> > 
> > It feels a bit like "finish it or leave"... Speaking about finishing, did
> > you have a chance to try it? Do you think it is useful despite failure
> > of some opengl (but not opengl-es) tests? If so I'm happy to own ITP
> > even though it might not be a right time for me.
> Sorry, I neither have time nor interest to investigate glmark2, nor do
> I find glmark2 particularly in scope of pkg-multimedia. Moreover, the
> svn-buildpackage style packaging already deterred me enough to refrain
> me to take a closer look.

Sorry Reinhard, I didn't know you feel so strong about it. Of course I'll move 
the package to collab-maint if you insist. Otherwise I'll convert its 
repository to git-buildpackage layout so we can decide whenever we want it in 
pkg-multimedia. Thanks.


More information about the pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list